Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"


"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lvgvhWF3Ox5JFwBR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DgOWCxEMxO5JFwUs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KgVUyzAm4v4JFwtK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lvvvRFDOqg4JFwZe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If one accepts what experiment is saying, that light is made up of
photons
then one has to have a photon structure which incorporates 'phase'
and
'frequency'. Waldron suggested that photons consist of equal
positive
and
negative charge rotating.

Clearly Waldron doesn't know much about electric motors and generators
or even AC in general.



You will have to explain what you mean.

There are strong magnets and there are weak magnets. Strong magnets
provide more force than weak magnets.
Electromagnets are lumps of iron with copper wire coiled around them,
and they exert a force when a current runs through the wire. The more
current, the stronger the force. Reversing the current reverses the
polarity of the magnet. Alternating the current alternates the polarity.

Basic stuff.

This may give Waldron the illusion that the magnet is rotating

What magnet?

Electromagnets are lumps of iron with copper wire coiled around them,
and they exert a force when a current runs through the wire. Oh wait...
I already said that.

There are no lumps of iron with copper wire coiled around them in a beam
of light nor in Waldon's model of a photon. What are you on about?

I'm on about basic stuff.
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/746/30016736.JPG
What's Waldron on about?



'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero



but in fact
it isn't, and if Waldron suggests photons consist of equal positive and
negative charges rotating then Waldron doesn't know the difference
between polarity reversal and rotation.

I fail to see the connection.

That's your problem, I can't force you to understand "basic stuff".


X + ----o---- -

Suppose I have a positive probe charge at X. Suppose I have equal and
opposite charges rotating about o. The probe charge will experience an
attraction force towards o in the position shown. When Rotation is 180
it
will feel repulsion. An alternating electrical field.

I've yet to see a TV aerial rotating at 1 Hz, let alone at VHF, and I can
assure you my mobile phone doesn't spin in my pocket at 9 GHz for
signal reception or transmission either.

The aerial is stationary.

Oh, I thought you said Waldron had something spinning.

The mass of photons are all rotating in phase.

Photons have no mass. What are you on about?



They produce an alternating electric field which induces an alternating
current in the aerial.

Well, of course. What does that have to do with rotating?



'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do
so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith

If you tried explaining what you mean instead of being so flaming
cryptic I might understand the point you are making. I am perfectly
willing to try. I can see no connection between light photons and lumps
of iron with wire wrapped around them.

Ok, well, I can see no connection between rotating charges and
photons, which is why I brought it up. But never mind, read on.

Basic Stuff:
~~~~~~~~~~~

1/ Magnetic and electric fields are not two separate phonomina but are
related (Oersted Faraday) and are caused by charge and motion.

Right (but for 'phenomena').


2/ Maxwell's equations are a rearrangement of Faraday's relationships -
which in turn relate to charge and motion.

Whatever...

3/ Maxwell modelled light as electromagnetic waves with magnetic and
electric fields having a fixed relationship. E, H at every point are in
fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Ivor Catt points out that it is a myth
that E causes H which causes E etc.

Ivor Catt doesn't like electric motors and generators, obviously.


4/ A field according to Maxwell mapped an altered state in the aether. A
charge caused a 'stress' (altered state) in the aether which explained
action at a distance force between charges and this stress can propagate
through the aether at c in the form of electromagnetic waves = light.

Whatever...

5/ Maxwell's equations have been highly successful strongly suggesting a
link between charge and light.

Whatever...


6/ Two things complicated the issue:
a. The photoelectric effect shows that energy cannot be spread evenly
across a wave front. Maxwell's theory - based as it is on continuous
fields, is therefore only an approximation. It describes the statistical
result but does not accurately model the physical process.

Whatever...

b. Physics, somewhat arbitrarily, rejected the aether concept. They
botched the job in that having rejected the aether they could not bring
themselves to reject the idea of a 'field' despite the fact that they
have no alternative to what Maxwell conceived - mapping the altered
state in the aether. Modern physics still believes that a field can
exist in space when there is no charge to cause it. This means that
modern physics believes that 'space' is capable of storing energy in a
field. Space which can store energy in an altered state is the
fundamental definition of the aether so physics believes in the aether
but dare not speak its name. :o) Not my problem.

Wrong. A field can exist in space when there is no charge to cause it.
What will happen is the field will collapse and you'll get a nice spark
to ignite the fuel in your car engine, but while it is in the process of
collapsing it is existing in space.
That is your first problem.
Your second problem is: nothing is rotating make that happen.



7/ Physics botched it again in allowing the wave duality doctrine to
take hold despite the fact it is untenable. It says that light energy is
continuously distributed across a wave front - and it isn't. This has
allowed two branches of physics to go their own way and diverge and now
we have the totally pointless exercise of trying to unify them with
string theory which Hawking says may work if we assume that the universe
has 10 or 26 dimensions - "but only if the infinities cancel".

Whatever...

In my view if you have to go to those lengths to fix something then it
isn't worth fixing. It is broke! it is wrong! It is cocked up. Somewhere
along the way a wrong turn was taken and you have to go back and
rebuild. To rebuild you need to look at none standard stuff. I simply go
for what seems logical.

I totally agree, but Waldron's rotating charges are no help.

The wrong turn began with John Goodricke, who theorized incorrectly.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls




None standard stuff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1/I reject the idea that energy distributed in space can instantaneously
collapse to a point so I reject the wave model as being a way forward.
While explaining wavelike phenomena in terms of particles is exceedingly
daunting there is no reason to believe it is impossible.

Spinning charges would be no better. Magnetic fields exist in space,
when they collapse they produce electrostatic fields that exist in space.
A TV tube is proof of that. (Standard stuff, see LOPT).




2/ Light is particulate so doesn't need an aether to propagate. The
aether concept is not attractive as it requires many conflicting
properties. Lets get rid of it but in doing so we must face up to the
consequences. One consequence is that we have to accept that all force
acts naturally at-a-distance. It does not require an aether to transfer
the force, nor does it require force carrying particles. There is no
point in postulating things to explain something if they are more
complex than the thing one is trying to explain and add nothing to
understanding. The only thing against accepting that a force acts
naturally at a distance is that it is counter intuitive. So what!

What does this have to do with Waldon's rotating positive and negative
charges?


3/ If a force acts naturally at a distance with no intermediary then a
'field' is simply the field of influence of a charge (electric field)


WHOA!!!!!

Are you saying the marges (poles) of a magnetic field are now called
magnetic charges, or does the term 'charge' only apply to electric fields?

X N ----o---- S
N = North, S = South

Rotating magnetic poles produce an alternating MAGNETIC field which
induces an alternating ELECTRIC current in the aerial.
Actually the magnets are NOT rotating, but they do alternate.
Crankshafts rotate, pistons alternate.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif



or
a mass (gravitational field). It cannot exist in the absence of charge
or mass respectively.

Actually charge cannot exist in the absence of field. Charge and field
are the opposite sides of the same coin. The magnetic field is phase
shifted from the electric field by 90 degrees.


Independent fields in space cannot exist so light
does not consist of independent fields.

Yes it does, the fields alternate. You saying is it not so doesn't
make it not so. A magnetic field cannot collapse instantaneously,
it produces an electric field.






4/ The success of Maxwell's equations implies a link between light and
charge. Light is made up of photons. Light appears to have fields
associated with it. If independent fields do not exist then they must be
dependent fields. i.e. fields caused by the presence of charge therefore
photons must contain charge.

Not rotating charges though, only alternating charges.

4a/ The success of Maxwell's equations implies a link between light and
poles. Light is made up of photons. Light appears to have fields
associated with it. If independent fields do not exist then they must be
dependent fields. i.e. fields caused by the presence of magnetic poles
therefore photons must contain magnetic poles.



5/ I reject the idea once proposed by Einstein that light "waves"
consist of periodic variations of photon density. A single photon has a
specific energy which is associated with a specific frequency by
Planck's constant. Put simply the frequency information is carried with
each photon. Likewise phase must also be carried by each photon and
photons must be emitted in coherent batches such that their phase
information is consistent. Likewise the polarisation information must be
carried by each photon

6/ As photons are neutrally charged they must contain equal positive and
negative charge. As the dependent fields associated with light are
undulatory the charge within a photon must be in some sort of periodic
motion. Rotation seems the most obvious the axis of rotation can then
equate with polarisation.

What happens when the charge is rotated through 90 degrees?
+
|
X o
|
-
Oh wait, I think I know. The crankshaft stands still and the engine rotates
around it, right? :-)

7/ Photons have momentum and are attracted by Gravity - i.e. they have
mass. From various considerations Waldron has concluded that the energy
of a photon is made up of two components. The kinetic energy - which
varies depending on the relative velocity between source and observer
0.5mv^2 and an internal energy 0.5mc^2 which doesn't. (in the FoR of the
source v = c so total energy = mc^2). You can calculate the mass from

hf = mc^2

Nope. Momentum must be conserved.
Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and opposite
rephoton. Newton knew what he was talking about.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
hf = 1/2 mc^2, but there are two photons,
total energy 2 * 1/2 mc^2 = mc^2
Looks like Waldron got it wrong again.


He has suggested that a photon consists of mass of equal positive and
negative charge and the internal energy is the result of rotation.

What rotation? Oh wait! The energy rotates! Yes, that works.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif

See, the electric field is red and blue and alternates, the magnetic
field is green and yellow and alternates,the energy is constant and
rotates.

He
makes some assumptions (e.g. that a photon is spherical) and calculates
various parameters.

What, like this?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif



Gamma photons are so small they act exactly like
particles.

Radio photons are so huge they act exactly like waves.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif


Light photons are again small but at the intensity one gets
in a laser they overlap or as he describes interpenetrate, this
facilitates synchronisation which is why a laser is coherent. By the
time we get to radio the photons are numerous, are very large and
interpenetrate to such a degree that considering radio signals to be
made up of individual particles becomes meaningless and of course radio
signals are coherent because of this inter-penetration.

I don't think Waldron's ideas are the end of the story - merely a
promising starting point. He has attempted to tackle all the right
questions.

Brave attempt but no cigar. Rotating charges my arse.
Conclusion: Waldron doesn't know much about electric motors and
generators or even AC in general. Not an engineer, obviously.






As an example, a single-phase squirrel cage electric motor will rotate
in either direction although the magnetic field is alternating. Single
phase
motors have a starting winding (or shaded pole) to give the initial
direction. A three-phase motor has three separate magnetic fields
which alternate; because the 2nd and 3rd currents are phase shifted
120 degrees and 240 degrees from the 1st current, this gives the
illusion that the magnetic field is rotating.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/3-phase_flow.gif

If one accepts what experiment is saying, that light is made up of
photons
then one has to have a photon structure which incorporates 'phase' and
'frequency'.
The only difference between a motor/generator set and a photon is that
the latter doesn't have any copper or iron (i.e. matter) to keep the
magnetic
and electric fields in one place, otherwise they are both energy
transfer
mechanisms.

Conclusion: Waldron doesn't know much about electric motors and
generators or even AC in general.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm



--
John Kennaugh




--
John Kennaugh



.

Quantcast